Politico’s Jonathan Martin didn’t only malign residents of Florida’s Panhandle on MSNBC when he invoked the phrase “Cracker Counties” to refer to the region, he went on to equate the region with all of the Deep South, also mentioning Georgia and Alabama by name. We can also assume it would cover many of the military men and women residing in Florida’s Panhandle.

Jonathan Martin, right

Politico’s Jonathan Martin isn’t a big fan of everyday people, especially those who don’t vote for Obama. If you want to understand who this man really is, you need only click here. To protect then-candidate Barack Obama and get the heat off of him after making his infamous and revealing ”spread the wealth” comment, Martin needed to change the narrative quick, so he investigated and published dirt on a PRIVATE CITIZEN. What followed was a narrative-changing (to benefit Obama) MSM attack against a guy who was minding his own business when Obama approached him.

“Cracker” has a long pejorative history, much of it linked to slavery, as in he who “cracks” the whip, while other uses of the word always refer to the more lowly born.

Frederick Law Olmsted, a prominent landscape architect from Connecticut, visited the South as a journalist in the 1850s and wrote that “some crackers owned a good many Negroes, and were by no means so poor as their appearance indicated.”

Martin may just as well have slandered the people of the region by referring to them as “White Trash.” That is, in effect, how the word can be interpreted today. One can only imagine the outrage had a less than liberal outlet and journalist maligned an entire race or class, as Martin did. There’s also this from a letter to the Earl of Dartmouth. (more…)

People don’t evolve over only four decades, certainly not leftists. During the Vietnam War, the left was pretty sure that trashing the United States Military as “baby killers” and the like would win them supporters. Instead, they felt a public relations blowback that exists to this day. As a response, the left didn’t stop hating our troops; they simply changed their tactics. Today, these leftists carefully hide their hatred and contempt for the military, because they know that that opinion is an unpopular one. I’m not saying this is true about about everyone on the left, but the extreme way in which some in the media have intentionally over-reacted and overblown a story about a few Marines caught urinating on the dead bodies of the Taliban has finally revealed who these people are.

Should those young Marines have done what they did? Of course not. Is what they did worthy of a story? Yes, it is. But is it the kind of behavior worth the media storm that’s been brewing for going on for a week now? Absolutely not.

This is simply the leftist MSM’s way of smearing the troops by pretending they’re not smearing the troops. We’re just reporting, donchaknow.

You see, over time, those on left who are currently obsessed with this story probably got tired of posing as outlets and individuals who revere America’s fighting men and women. The pent-up pressure of living this lie and all the frustration that goes along with that finally let go, and now we have mountains built from molehills and a nothingburger turned into an international scandal. The pressure valve burst and the troop-hatred came forth thinly disguised as “reporting.”

There comes a time when legitimate reporting turns into a ginned-up narrative, and some in the MSM crossed that line days ago.

Moreover, some MSM troop-haters have gone even further by attacking Dana Loesch over her defense of these same Marines. Loesch says something  on a local St. Louis radio station, and the MSM generates story after story after story about it — once again turning a nothingburger into something international. But again, this is the leftist MSM feeding their bigotry with what they see as a two-fer.  First off, the trumped up Loesch story keeps the story about the Marines alive and secondly, those in the MSM have an excuse to release all that pent-up hate and aggression they hold towards the one thing they hate more than the troops: strong, independent women who reject the left.

(more…)

Bill Maher has always broken with his progressive ideology on the topic of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. His remarks from last night’s “Real Time” were no exception:

(more…)

Media Matters appears fixated on a mission to try and silence the free speech of Big Journalism editor Dana Loesch, while also engaging upon a campaign to somehow damage her with CNN. True to their Leftist origins, it never seems enough for them to disagree, or even take offense, at someone, or something, they invariably resort to attempting to silence them. Such thuggish tactics have no place in media, least of all in America. Perhaps they are mis-named.

Now, they’d like their readers to believe that somehow Rush Limbaugh has rejected Loesch’s comments. But that’s simply not true.

Dana Loesch’s comments, too extreme for Rush Limbaugh, put her out on the fringe where CNN should never go.

Certainly, Limbaugh has his own opinion, one that MMfA would likely desire to shut down every bit as much as they now seem intent on silencing Loesch. However, Limbaugh also took to task the very type of over-reaction in which Media Matters is now engaged, over-reaction that was Loesch’s original point. Evidently, MMfA is too blinded by their mission to realize Limbaugh may as well have been speaking directly to them, given their current misguided efforts aimed at Loesch. Emphasis mine.

Well, there’s a video, nobody knows how old it is, of some U.S. Marines urinating on the bodies of Taliban combatants in Afghanistan. Peed on them. And of course it’s Marines. It violated the rules. There’s no defense of this. The overreaction of this is nuts, but still it happened.

It’s worth noting that, while obsessively attacking Loesch in post after post, they’ve yet to acknowledge the comments of Representative Alan West (Fl).

I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.

MMfA also ignored the scores of other conservatives who’ve said the same, some beyond, Loesch’s original point on reaction.

(more…)

Yesterday on my radio show I discussed the topic of the Marines videotaping themselves urinating on dead Taliban fighters. The usual mob of progressive haters started campaigning on Twitter and complaining to CNN.

Video still

The first source of “outrage” was “Nicole Gennette,” a liberal sockpuppet on Twitter who has adopted the name of one of Anthony Weiner’s alleged love interests–and who is likely a man anyway. Yet Mediaite dutifully quoted him/her.

Politico this morning attempted to elevate the trumped-up controversy over my remarks to a serious journalistic story, and didn’t bother reaching out to me for comment prior to publishing. It’s the kind of hit job Politico does best–and likely payback for all the times their journalistic malpractice has been pointed out here.

There is a difference in advocating for the Marines to break the law, which I didn’t do, and defending them from overly-dramatic hysteria. I was using absurdity to highlight absurdity. It’s absurd to desecrate corpses but it’s not wrong to hate terrorists who are trying to kill our troops–and us. And I’m not in uniform–so I am free to express what a lot of Americans feel about the controversy, even if it makes some pony-tailed academics feel uncomfortable.

The progressive left chose to include CNN in their attack because they don’t like that the network–any network–features conservative voices and have been throwing everything at the wall to get me removed since the very beginning.

My entire point of the past two days was to highlight the absurd reaction from militant troop-bashers to these Marines. In my Twitter timeline yesterday progressives called our military “killers, kids, barbaric trash, murderers …” The only time soldiers are celebrated by the left is when they engage in protests like OWS. The rest of the time they’re demonized. They get the red carpet rolled out for them, too.

And let’s not forget how lefty bloggers like Markos Moulitsas feels about dead American military contractors. His excuse for his “screw them” comment? He was angry about soldiers getting killed. You know what? So am I. But I blame the people who are trying to kill them–not the people they are trying to protect. And I won’t condemn American soldiers on the battlefield. (more…)

The Obamas threw an epic Halloween bash in 2009 and we’re only just now discovering how over-the-top the bash was — and how complicit media was in keeping the White House’s secret. After all, White House staff was “concerned” that the extravagant bash would appear tone-deaf to unemployed Americans, hundreds of thousands of whom are leaving the workforce entirely as new jobs are scarce and businesses are stretched thin. But is the story what it seems?

The White House has thrown so many over-the top parties and the First Lady has come under fire from the President’s advisers for her expensive tastes, so the initial reaction to hearing of yet another extravagant White House party is anger. But was the Halloween bash like the other White House parties? Was it like the party with Paul McCartney that the Obamas enjoyed while the Gulf struggled with an oil spill? Or the party the White House threw when America had its credit rating downgraded? If media reports are to be believed, the Halloween bash was “staged“/thrown by Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. Security for the event would cost the public, but (I assume) comparatively no more than the cost of the annual Easter egg roll or other observances.

The point of the question isn’t to excuse the Obamas’ past irresponsibility in presentation; they lead one of the most tone-deaf administrations (Camelot style in a Carter economy, after all). The point is that this event, from my understanding, was for, and attended predominately by, military members and their families. This party is easier to justify, and features a better guest list, than the previous devil-may-care variety. I don’t want to discourage Hollywood from doing something nice for our soldiers when 99% of the movies they make about them portray them as monsters. The last time Johnny Depp dabbled in politics he called the country a “big dumb puppy.” A good deed like footing the bill (assumedly sans Secret Service, other security) for a bash thrown in honor of military families deserves some positive reinforcement by way of kudos, if this report is true.

There is still the pesky question of why the White House and media in attendance kept all of this quiet.

The White House press corps was allowed to report on more modest festivities earlier that day for Washington-area school children, but did not release details of the more glamorous festivities that occurred later for what was the Obamas’ first Halloween in office in 2009.

Why? One could beg the question that the White House and media didn’t disclose this because they knew it was wrong. Why would it be wrong? Because of public reaction? This is where it gets sneaky. It’s a set up: The narrative will be that details weren’t released because the White House didn’t want folks freaking out over extravagances for military families provided by a Hollywood director and his actor/muse. The narrative will progress into a notion that conservatives are tight-fisted when it comes to providing military families with a nice Halloween, one that wasn’t even at the conservatives’s expense. It will reinforce the stereotype that conservatives and Hollywood will always be at odds, and can’t a film director throw a party for the military if he wants? GOSH.

(more…)

Sign On San Diego recently awarded its “Person of the Year” to the Marine.

We can think of no better way to begin this tradition than by selecting as our first winner the Marine. Since Sept. 11, 2001, America has relied on the Marine to keep us safe from terror at home and to take the fight to our enemies abroad, a task our Marines have handled with immense courage, professionalism and honor. (more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid:

In a major blow to Al-Jazeera’s drive for acceptance and respectability in the West, the government of Israel says that one of the channel’s correspondents has confessed to acting as an agent of the terrorist group Hamas. The Israeli government also claims to have uncovered a network of Hamas operatives using Al-Jazeera as a cover.

The U.S. State Department designates Hamas as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” and states that it “was formed in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Hamas does not recognize Israel and its founding charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. The group considers Israeli settlers and civilians legitimate military targets.

Samer Allawi, a Palestinian who ran Al-Jazeera’s Kabul, Afghanistan, bureau, was released, sentenced to time served, and agreed to pay a $1,400 fine. He was arrested on August 9 and held in an Israeli prison. Various press freedom groups had clamored for his release.

Some commentators are saying that the treatment of the Al-Jazeera correspondent is evidence of a tougher policy by Israel toward Qatar, an Arab dictatorship which completely finances Al-Jazeera and selects its news and editorial personnel. A classified report prepared by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and leaked to the Israeli media in August outlined Qatar’s more radical stance in the Arab and Muslim world and noted evidence of more frequent Hamas visits to Doha, the capital, and funding by Qatar of Hamas.

A story on the Israelnationalnews.com website about the report also indicated that Israel may start restricting the activities of Al-Jazeera correspondents inside Israel. It said, “Qatar is also the home of Arab satellite network Al-Jazeera, which the Foreign Ministry considers extremely anti-Israel. As a result, the Ministry has worked in recent months to prevent reporters from the network from operating in Israel, and has stopped giving them visas. Currently, the only way for an Al-Jazeera reporter to enter Israel is using a passport from a country that has full diplomatic relations with Jerusalem, but the Ministry is seeking ways to keep these individuals out of Israel as well.”

Although the emir of Qatar pours hundreds of millions of dollars into the channel, making it effectively a propaganda machine for the regime, he prohibits a free press and free elections at home. Bloggers critical of the royal family are simply taken away and tortured, while Al-Jazeera turns a blind eye and deaf ear to their fate.

But because the country hosts a U.S. military base, it enjoys a moderate and even pro-Western reputation. Qatar uses expensive public relations and lobbying firms like Barbour, Griffith & Rogers (BGR) and Brown Lloyd James.

(more…)

Nestled in the hills of Laguna Beach, CA overlooking the Orange County coastline, a slight hint of salt in the breeze as Gen Y TV spoke with documentary filmmaker and political commentator, Stephen K. Bannon. With his latest film, “The Undefeated,” about to debut in 80 million homes through major cable and satellite companies, Bannon’s eagerness to talk to youthful viewers pushed his personal victory aside. For the next hour, I spoke with this truly humble gentleman about the existing opportunities and challenges that face my generation.

A graduate of Harvard Business School, a Surface Warfare Officer for the US Navy, and a former investment banker for Goldman Sachs, Bannon is a remarkable example of how filmmaking can come at any age and point in one’s life. Technology has enabled anyone with a digital camera to creatively express opinions as entertainment, and as a result, Bannon has written and directed four documentary films in less than two years. With our country’s finances spiraling out of control, Bannon has particularly shed light on issues that are currently affecting America’s wellbeing. He emphasized the importance of storytelling and the necessity for being passionate about the topic you are conveying. He further explained the amount of time and effort that must be committed to a project, and said, “be prepared to spend a year of your life” hashing out the story.

Moving into the specifics of his work, I asked why he chose to dedicate a film to Sarah Palin, to which he replied, because “her story has never been told.” He immediately followed with, “she is an incredibly accomplished executive who took on a corrupt and compromised political class virtually single-handed.”

The many misconceptions of Palin personified by the mainstream media opened Bannon’s film. He used this approach to gain an emotional reaction from the audience and demonstrate the influence pop culture has on the younger generation. But what started out as a conversation about independent filmmaking quickly turned to the state of the economy and the daunting problems that are soon to be inherited by those 18-35 years-old.

(more…)

This morning while on the Political Buzz panel for CNN we discussed the reported “booing” of the gay soldier who asked about DADT at last night’s debate.

Considering the amount of print devoted to painting the entire crowd out to be bloodthirsty haters with zero regard for military service, it’s no wonder that it would become a question the next day.

Unfortunately for the progressives writing the spin (who forget that it was their idol Bill Clinton who enacted DADT in the first place), the entire story of the debate audience booing is a lie.

Sara Rumpf was in the debate audience and what she witnessed was vastly different than the account the outlets linked above are reporting:

I want to put this on the record now about an incident that happened at tonight’s Republican debate. It’s important that the truth is shared, because I have already seen liberal bloggers and some people on Twitter completely distorting what happened.

The debate included video questions that were submitted on YouTube, and one came from a soldier serving in Iraq who is gay and asked about the candidates’ opinions on don’t ask don’t tell. There was audible booing after his question…however, please note that it was not the crowd booing. It was only one or two people.

(more…)

A known liberal activist that has for months been stalking several Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin, verbally abusing them, has finally crossed the line into a physical attack. So … where is the Old Media to chronicle this assault? Sadly, no where to be seen.

On Sept. 14 left-wing activist Miles Kirstan entered The Inn at 22 S. Carroll Street in Madison, Wisconsin, began to harass some GOP lawmakers patronizing the establishment, and ultimately attacked them, throwing a mug of beer on them.

The Madison Police Department confirmed to the MacIver Institute that the incident occurred and the group found that Republican State Rep. Robin Voss (Burlington) was the main target. Reps. John Nygren (Marinette) and Scott Suder (Abbotsford) were also a victim of the attack.

Kirstan is a well-known face among the extremists that have been railing against the Walker administration over the budget cuts and other legislative efforts.

He’s well enough known that some halfwitted groupies have excitedly delivered their hosannas to him online.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid:

A journalist for Al-Jazeera has been arrested on suspicion of being an agent of the Palestinian terror group Hamas. The journalist, Samer Allawi, Al-Jazeera’s bureau chief in Afghanistan, is a Palestinian. He was apprehended by Israeli authorities as he attempted to leave the West Bank.

The detention of Allawi, a major development in the media wars over the future of the Middle East, is not the first time that Israel has detained journalists from the channel. During the 2006 war in Lebanon, several Al-Jazeera journalists working in Israel were apprehended and warned about providing military information to Hezbollah, another terrorist organization. The accusation was that Al-Jazeera journalists were reporting the specific location of Hezbollah rocket strikes on Israel, enabling the terrorists to more accurately aim their weapons. In total, Hezbollah rained an estimated 3,970 Katyusha rockets and longer range missiles on military and civilian targets in Israel. The rockets have no internal guidance system and needed to rely on spotters or media coverage of their strikes to increase their accuracy.

This kind of activity earned the channel a lawsuit, filed by the Israel Law Center in the U.S., accusing Al-Jazeera of facilitating the deaths of Israeli and American victims of the war. Judge Kimba Wood dismissed the suit, claiming that the victims had failed to show Al-Jazeera had the specific intention of aiding Hezbollah.

Since its inception, however, Al-Jazeera has functioned as a mouthpiece for terrorist organizations, including but not limited to al-Qaeda. Tayseer Alouni, the channel’s Afghanistan correspondent during the 9/11 attacks, was apprehended by U.S. military authorities and turned over to Spain, his native country, where he was prosecuted, convicted, and jailed as an agent of al-Qaeda. Al-Jazeera defended him and paid his legal fees.

(more…)

While reading through newspaper stories about Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s cowardly attacks on Congressman Allen West earlier in the week, I came across an even more repulsive attack on him from a Palm Beach Post columnist named Frank Cerabino: the latter was especially repugnant because of the fact that it was full of haughtiness and a not-so-veiled attack against West’s military pride.

Dated October 20, 2010, Cerabino’s column was obviously part of a larger attempt to prevent West from being elected to Congress in November of that same year (and fortunately, it was an effort that failed).

In the column, Cerabino mocks Congressman West for writing articles that appeared in a biker magazine. Thus he refers to West as an “unhinged future AM-radio talk-show host” and “a regular contributor to Wheels on the Road, a South Florida bikers magazine bursting with right-wing political commentary.”

Elsewhere in the column, Cerabino haughtily remarked that he hadn’t known West was a “fellow columnist” until he found out about the West’s work in Wheels on the Road. The clear intent of this statement was to demonstrate Cerabino’s superiority because he was writing for the Post while West was writing for a lowly biker magazine. (Note to Cerabino – I’d rather read the biker magazine.)

Anyway, Cerabino’s column also took the criticism of Congressman West to new levels by mocking the pride West takes in his military service. Wrote Cerabino: “[West has] a penchant for wearing his Army jump wings on civilian blazers.” (Note to Cerabino – mocking a Republican’s pride in the military might be the cool thing to at the cocktail parties which the Post’s columnists attend, but in heartland American it’s viewed as despicable.)

Now, before anyone gets all bent out of shape and sends me emails about how Cerabino was in the Navy years ago and therefore can’t be accused of mocking the military, please note that I know he was in the Navy. Please also note that John Kerry served in Vietnam, yet he described our troops fighting in Iraq as terrorists.

(more…)

The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof is a simpleton. There is really no other way to say it, no gentler phrasing possible, to explain how childish and uncluttered his tiny little mind really is. The latest example of his utter inability to think clearly can be seen in Kristof’s screed against Americans that love America. Kristof thinks that conservatives and Republicans should look with longing at the troubled nation of Pakistan and see it as a model state. He says that they are no better than Muslim extremists that employ oppression, murder, and terrorism as a tool of the state. No, he’s serious.

How does he justify this simple-minded, hyperbolic, partisan hate-speech? Not very well, I’ll tell you that much.

He makes all sorts of idiotic charges against Republicans, but the best way to understand how unthinkingly childish his screed is, is to simply imagine that everything he says conservatives support he must imagine that liberals are against. After all, the only way to see his calumnies as such is to imagine he thinks that he stands on the opposite side of the ideas of which he accuses conservatives of being in favor.

Let’s take his points and then imagine what the opposite is and you’ll see what I mean.

He says that Republicans are for the lowest tax burden. If this is true and he finds this a negative point, then we must assume Kristof wants the absolute highest tax burden, a crushing tax burden that destroys all capitalist endeavors. That would be the opposite, wouldn’t it?

Next Kristof says Republicans want a limited government so that, “burdensome regulations never kill jobs.” The only take away here is to understand that Kristof sees this as a bad thing. He is smarter than we are, you see. So, Kristof, then, wants a government that is so burdensome that it kills jobs. He must. He finds the non-burdensome government to be a negative against Republicans doesn’t he? (more…)

From Accuracy in Media‘s Cliff Kincaid:

Always anxious to put the best possible face on the illegal actions of the Obama Administration, the Saturday Washington Post story by David A. Fahrenthold reported that President Obama had “missed a legal deadline” requiring that he obtain congressional approval for U.S. military operations in Libya. The word “missed” implies an oversight or mistake, rather than a deliberate action. Hence, the Post wants to avoid the issue of whether Obama’s unauthorized attack on Libya was an impeachable offense.

The Post failed to note that Obama, when he was running for office, said, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” There was no threat to the U.S. from Libya.

Indeed, The Post failed to explicitly note that the War Powers Resolution, with the 60 day deadline, authorizes the use of force only in situations “where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.”

The law states that “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Since there was no declaration of war or statutory authorization for the Libya action, there has to be a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S. There was none in the Libya case.

(more…)

From Glenn Greenwald’s recent Salon piece:

The U.S. has erupted in a collective orgy of national pride and renewed faith in the efficacy and righteousness of military force.

I don’t see it that way, but so what if the U.S. has done exactly that?  American Special Operations Forces killed Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the calculated murder of thousands of innocent people in various locales around the world, including the massacres on September 11, 2001. What you’re witnessing is relief and jubilation that all of America’s sacrifice, which was foisted upon us by Osama bin Laden in the first place, has not been in vain.

This is not Glenn Greenwald, this is "Debbie Downer"

We’ve been after this man for the better part of a decade; it’s not like Americans erupted into jingoistic rapture in some sort of Pavlovian response to random violence. This is the symbolic denouement of America’s war on terrorism, and Americans are rightfully relieved at what this development represents: the victory of good over evil. Twisting this into some sourpuss statement on alleged American foolishness is absurd.

(more…)

It’s often when the logic of the left fails epically, but this was particularly juicy since the left has been working overtime to server the tie of bin Laden’s death to the Bush administration.

Keith Olbermann and many socialist new media outlets began to push a narrative that Rumsfeld denied harsh interrogation techniques, like waterboarding, led to the information which ultimately led to the death of Osama bin Laden.

Rumsfeld obliterated their meme just this evening:

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid.

Al-Jazeera is spinning the newly released “Guantanamo files,” saying they show that dozens of enemy combatants detained at the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay were innocent. But that’s not what the previously secret documents say about one high-profile detainee, Sami al-Hajj, an Al-Jazeera journalist released from Guantanamo after legal intervention by his Soros-funded lawyer and protests from human rights and press freedom groups.

The controversial allegations against this former “enemy combatant,” as detailed in this document, are being denounced by al-Hajj’s lawyer as “false and discredited allegations.”

But they show that U.S. officials suspected high-level cooperation between Al-Jazeera and al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. The charges also raise serious questions about why officials of the Obama Administration are currently praising the channel and cooperating with it.

The document says about Sami Muheidine Mohamed al-Haj, known as Sami al-Hajj and Prisoner 345, “His involvement as a money courier, involvement in the transfer of weapons and leadership position within the Muslim Brotherhood, along with his numerous connections made through Al-Jazeera and his pro-jihadist propaganda activities, illustrates his intelligence value.”

The detailed Department of Defense document, posted by WikiLeaks, is designated, “SECRET / / NOFORN / / 20330404DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HEADQUARTERS, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO U.S. NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA APO AE 09360” (more…)

Paul Krugman may be a Princeton poster child for Keynesian economics, but I am not sure how being a numbers wonk qualifies this man to comment on U.S. foreign policy that does not involve trade.  One cannot deny his academic bona fides, (after all, the world is filled with educated fools) but can very much challenge his credibility when discussing such complex matters as the Libyan intervention.  This man is by no means an impartial observer but rather an unashamed Obama partisan cut right from the mold of the New York Times editorial pages.  Combine the yin of his love affair with Barack Obama with the yang of his visceral George Bush hatred after all these years and what you get is the kind of utter nonsense and blatant hypocrisy that this man spilled out into the round table segment of ABC’s “This Week With Christiane Amanpour” this Sunday.

The topic was Libya and Obama’s ill-conceived, tardy, and ill-defined injection of US armed forces  to tip the balance of that pseudo-nation’s civil war from advantage Ghadafi to advantage, well, whomever they are.

(more…)